4.  The applicant was born in 1931 and lives in Budapest.
5.  On 24 May 1993 the applicant filed an action with the Bratislava – vidiek District Court. He claimed the estate of his predecessor.
6.  The District Court held several hearings in 1993. On 10 December 1993 it issued an injunction which the court of appeal quashed on 31 May 1994.
7.  In the second half of 1994 and in 1995 the District Court scheduled a number of hearings. The parties or their representatives were unable to attend several of them. The District Court took further evidence during that period.
8.  There was no progress in the case between 25 November 1996 and 28 October 1999. In 1997 the case fell to be examined by the Bratislava III District Court to which the court business of the former Bratislava – vidiek District Court had been transferred.
9.  On 18 April 2000 the applicant submitted further documents following a request by the District Court which his representative had received on 29 December 1999. In June and December 2001 the applicant specified his action and submitted further documents as requested by the District Court. On 8 February 2002 the District Court asked the applicant to submit another original of the document in which he provided further particulars of his claims.
10.  In August 2002 the District Court asked the defendant to comment on the claims. The defendant replied on 14 October 2002.
11.  On 13 April 2004 the District Court scheduled a hearing for 2 June 2004.
12.  As the defendant’s representative was unable to attend, the case was adjourned until 27 September 2004. On that date the case was again adjourned as the defendant was ill. A hearing was scheduled for 22 November 2004.
13.  Hearings were held in 2006. On 13 November 2006 the District Court allowed the applicant to modify his action.
14.  On 18 January 2007 the Bratislava III District Court delivered an interim judgment confirming that the applicant was the heir of the person whose estate he claimed.
15.  The defendant appealed.
16.  On 1 April 2008 the Bratislava Regional Court changed the first- instance decision in that it dismissed the applicant’s action. It held that the applicant’s claim had lapsed.
17.  On 21 October 2004 the Constitutional Court found that the Bratislava III District Court had violated the applicant’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time. There was no indication that the case was complex. The applicant by his conduct had not contributed to the length of the proceedings which, however, had been prolonged for reasons imputable to the defendant. The Constitutional Court noted, in particular, that the defendant had repeatedly been ill and that his representative had been unable to attend hearings several times in 1995 and in 2004. The District Court had remained inactive between 20 May 1996 and 28 October 1999, between 18 April 2000 and 3 May 2001 and also from 14 October 2001 to 13 April 2004. Unjustified delays thus exceeded 70 months.
18.  The Constitutional Court awarded the equivalent of 1,500 euros (EUR) to the applicant as just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage. It ordered the District Court to proceed with the case and to reimburse the applicant’s costs.